A single-celled irony

Materialists scoff at the idea that the first embryonic cell of Jesus arose miraculously,
but they accept that the first living cell arose spontaneously.

Many people have trouble accepting the miracle of Jesus’ virginal conception.1 It’s often dismissed
as a biological impossibility—a myth that belongs to a pre-scientific age.
Ironically, however, many people who mock the virgin birth have no trouble accepting
a similar “miracle” that, just like the virgin birth, begins with a
single cell.

Life begins with a single cell

The New Testament implies that Jesus had a normal gestation time (9 months). Therefore,
it’s reasonable to assume that, just like you and me, Jesus began His embryonic
development as a single cell. Normally, the first cell is formed when egg meets
sperm. This first cell contains the entire human genome—one set of chromosomes
from each parent. But since Jesus didn’t have a human father, miraculous intervention
was required to bring about this first cell.

People who reject the virgin birth essentially have a problem with the appearance
of this first cell. The rest of the nine month process is generally not regarded
as miraculous, because it takes place millions of times all over the world each
year.

Evolution begins with a single cell

The origin of the first cell is also critically important in evolutionary biology.
I remember one of my university lecturers telling us that cells only come from other
cells—but then he quickly corrected himself: “except, of course, for
the first cell”. According to evolutionary reckoning, all life can be traced
back to a single cell, which itself arose from non-living chemicals.2 But since the simplest cell we know of is horrendously
complex,3 this leaves evolutionists
with the unenviable task of explaining how such complexity could arise by chance
alone.4

While many scoff at the idea that the first embryonic cell of Jesus arose miraculously,
they have no trouble accepting that the first living cell (which supposedly gave
rise to all living things) arose ‘miraculously’.

Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. For example, New
York Times science writer Nicholas Wade confessed: “The chemistry
of the first life is a nightmare to explain.”5 But perhaps the most startling assessment of the
problem was given by Francis Crick, the man who won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering
the structure of DNA. He surmised: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears
at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions
which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” [emphasis added].6 So even the self-proclaimed
atheist Francis Crick thinks it’s appropriate to use the word ‘miracle’
(albeit reluctantly) to describe the appearance of the first living cell.

Maybe atheists have more in common with Christians than they like to admit. While
many scoff at the idea that the first embryonic cell of Jesus arose miraculously,
they have no trouble accepting that the first living cell (which supposedly gave
rise to all living things) arose ‘miraculously’. This is indeed a single-celled
irony.

Further Reading

References and notes

Some origin-of-life researchers have speculated that a genetic
system first evolved without a cell membrane, but others have acknowledged “that
genetics and membranes had to have evolved together”. Wade, N., New glimpses
of life’s puzzling origins, The New York Times, 15 June 2009; nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html.
Return to text.

Natural selection cannot be invoked because it only works
on self-reproducing entities. Return to text.

Wade, N., Life’s origins get murkier and messier,
The New York Times, 13 June 2000; nytimes.com/2000/06/13/science/life-s-origins-get-murkier-messier-genetic-analysis-yields-intimations.html.
Return to text.

Crick, F., Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, Simon
and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 88. Even though Crick uttered these words over
25 years ago, they are still representative of the state of affairs today. For example:
“The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate
in the world of today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.” Kirschner,
M. and Gerhart, J., The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma,
Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2005, p. 256. Return
to text.

The great commission tells us to preach the Gospel to every nation. We might not be able to go there in the flesh but this site can penetrate every country on the globe. Help the world find 'creation'. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Sigi K.,Australia:

Thank you for pointing this out. It is amazing how our preconceived ideas colour our thinking.

Kevin M.,United States:

Good points. It’s amazing, the tendency to substitute one miracle for another (or MANY for MANY others) as long as it’s the idea of Creation they dismiss.

“R.”,Australia:

This article reminded me of an event occuring some seventy years ago at the age of about ten years.

My mother said in response to something I had said or done, “your father will never be able to deny you are his”. My father’s teasing retort was, “you are the only one who really knows” and my mother’s unusual reaction to this only became evident to me some fifty years later when on citing my parents marriage certificate I noted that she was “father unknown”.

Shortly after this I had reason to read of the miracle of the turning of water into wine and it suddenly hit me. When Mary said to the waiters “Do what ever he tells you” she was saying she knew who his father was. So if anyone asks me if I really believe in the virgin birth I simply point out that Mary did and “she was the one person who really knew” Might be best if my name is left out in the case of publication of this for obvious reasons.

We identify this correspondent simply as “R.”, from Australia, “for obvious reasons”, in line with their understandable request.

Ramon G.,Spain:

I was thinking in the same line about the concept of multiverse. It is surprising that evolutionists deny the unseen multiverse that the Bible presents (Heaven, Hell) but they are willing to believe in as many universes as their theory requires for life to arise by chance.